Replies

What the Presidents offer to Federal Workers will do is incentivize people who would be most likely to dig in and oppose Trump and his policies, people who are closest to retirement and exist in the upper levels of federal service. They will have to consider whether its better to stay under Trump and take the chance that their department or they might be terminated or might undergo a forced reorganization and relocation to someplace like a metal building in Fargo N.D., or, take the offer and their Federal Pension and 7 months off to find another job or retire.

Once they leave the efficiency group will be able to get a read on how much staffing and what departments can be eliminated or consolidated.

Applicable here, a small slide to "Parkinson's Law". The 2nd law applies to bureaucracies and their tendency to expand and grow.

Parkinson's_law

Parkinson's law can refer to either of two observations, published in 1955 by the naval historian C. Northcote Parkinson as an essay in The Economist:[1]

"Work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion",

And:

"The number of workers within public administration, bureaucracy or officialdom tends to grow, regardless of the amount of work to be done. This was attributed mainly to two factors: that officials want subordinates, not rivals, and that officials make work for each other.

snip....

This was the main focus of the essay by Cyril Northcote Parkinson, published in The Economist in 1955,[1][7] and reprinted with other similar essays in the successful 1958 book Parkinson's Law: The Pursuit of Progress.[8] The book was translated into many languages. It was highly popular in the Soviet Union and its sphere of influence.[9] In 1986, Alessandro Natta complained about the swelling bureaucracy in Italy. Mikhail Gorbachev responded that "Parkinson's law works everywhere."[10] Parkinson derived the dictum from his extensive experience in the British Civil Service. He gave, as examples, the growth in the size of the British Admiralty and Colonial Office even though the numbers of their ships and colonies were declining.

Much of the essay is dedicated to a summary of purportedly scientific observations supporting the law, such as the increase in the number of employees at the Colonial Office while the British Empire declined (he showed that it had its greatest number of staff when it was folded into the Foreign Office due to a lack of colonies to administer). He explained this growth using two forces: (1) "An official wants to multiply subordinates, not rivals", and (2) "Officials make work for each other." He noted that the number employed in a bureaucracy rose by 5–7% per year "irrespective of any variation in the amount of work (if any) to be done". (See the link for his formula expressing this growth.)

...Snip (Slide over.)