Crémieux Profile picture
Feb 12, 2025 • 10 tweets • 4 min read • Read on X
The biggest news of the day should once again be about DOGE.

A new Executive Order was passed a few minutes ago.

It empowers DOGE to spearhead the complete reorganization of the federal governmentđź§µ Image
The first part of this Order is simple:

The OMB will put out a plan to make the federal workforce smaller and more efficient, including a stipulation that agencies must remove four existing employees for each new hire, with some exceptions. Image
The second part is meatier.

New hires have to be approved by newly-installed DOGE Team Leads in each agency. These Team Leads will report what goes on in the agency they're assigned to on a monthly basis.

But that's not even the big part yet. Image
Third, agency heads will prepare for a massive reduction in the federal workforce.

This workforce reduction will apply to employees not performing necessary and statutorily mandated functions, so if Congress isn't protecting your job, you're likely leaving. Image
Fourth, suitability judgments about the excepted service will be expanded.

People who do not meet certain legal obligations, people who do not certify NDA compliance, and people who steal or misuse government resources are deemed no longer suitable for employment in it. Image
Here's the really big part of this order. It's kind of buried down deep, but it's very important:

Agencies are ordered to develop a comprehensive reorganization plan that identifies offices that can be purged because they lack statutory protections, and offices to consolidate. Image
Putting this all together, what the Order entails is a massive reorganization of the federal workforce and the streamlining of the civil service to make its operation line up with the goals of DOGE.

Not only that, but it empowers DOGE by embedding Team Leads for oversight.
Couple this with the February 4 OPM memo on CIOs, and what we have is staggering:

The federal government will be centralized, stripped down, and more intimately controlled by the President and his delegates, with control enhanced via DOGE.

This is the biggest news of the day, and it's hard to overstate just how big it is.

Because the federal government has grown so unwieldy that no one can provide you with a semblance of an outline of it, measures like this may just be needed to tame the beast.

Get ready!
You can read the EO here: whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

Jan 17
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.

One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.

If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap! Image
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.

Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.

The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jan 17
One of the issues with understanding Greater Male Variability on IQ tests is that groups that perform better tend to show greater variance

Therefore, to estimate the 'correct' male-female gap, you need to estimate it when the difference is 0

In the CogAT, that looks like this: Image
In Project Talent, that looks like this: Image
And comparing siblings in the NLSY '79, that looks like this: Image
Read 5 tweets
Jan 14
About a decade ago, a theory emerged:

If men do more of the housework and child care, fertility rates will rise!

Men have been doing increasingly large shares of the housework and child care.

Fertility is lower than ever.Image
In fact, they're doing more in each generation, but fertility has continued to fall. Image
The original claim, that men's household work would buoy fertility, was based on cross-sectional data that was inappropriately given a causal interpretation.

The updated cross-sectional data is as useful, and it affords no assurances about the original idea.

We should move on.
Read 4 tweets
Jan 13
American military veterans have a suicide problem.

Some have theorized the reason is deployment-related trauma.

Leveraging the random assignment of new soldiers to units with different deployment cycles, Bruhn et al. found that was wrong.

Deployment did not increase suicides. Image
Looking only at violent deployments (ones with peer casualties), there aren't noncombat mortality effects either.

What explains veteran suicide rates? Image
The reason seems to be that the proposition is wrong: veterans do not have increased suicide risk.

This may seem surprising, but it's not!

Their suicide rates are elevated over the general population because most of them are young White men. That group has a suicide issue. Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 12
That aspect is probably not that unrealistic, unfortunately.

Across the OECD, on average, just 55% of 15-to-16-year-olds got this question right, and no country saw 80% get it.

Most people globally *do* struggle even reading simple tables. What else?

Thread.đź§µ Image
That table-reading question is "Level 3", which, amazingly, corresponds to an already-high level of ability, by global standards.

This is a simpler Level 1 question, but with this, 92% of the OECD got it, including just 65% of Brazilians and 53% of Peruvians. Image
Level 2!

Just 77% of the OECD got this, with less than half of the Mexican population being up to the task.

In fact, only Asian countries got over 90% on this trivial question. Image
Read 9 tweets
Jan 10
Credit card rewards are a great way to redistribute billions of dollars from people who are bad with money to people who are good with it.

With the advent of rewards cards (red), there's lots of cross-subsidization of people with high credit scores by people with low scores. Image
Curiously, the degree of cross-subsidization is not just an income thing.

People with high incomes (green) and moderate incomes (yellow) take fewer rewards at low credit scores, although they take more at high credit scores. Image
What does this do demographically? Spatially?

Credit card rewards transfer money from uneducated to educated, poor to rich, Black to White, and rural to urban. Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(