Felix Herzog
@felixherzog.de
Reposted by Felix Herzog
Should government databases be cleaner? It's a cost-benefit question.
Cost: $5-10m to clean out the old records
Benefit: Only "limited benefit" because "almost none" of these records are receiving payments.
This hardly feels like big potatoes, either way.
But DOGE gotta DOGE.
Cost: $5-10m to clean out the old records
Benefit: Only "limited benefit" because "almost none" of these records are receiving payments.
This hardly feels like big potatoes, either way.
But DOGE gotta DOGE.
February 17, 2025 at 4:11 PM
Should government databases be cleaner? It's a cost-benefit question.
Cost: $5-10m to clean out the old records
Benefit: Only "limited benefit" because "almost none" of these records are receiving payments.
This hardly feels like big potatoes, either way.
But DOGE gotta DOGE.
Cost: $5-10m to clean out the old records
Benefit: Only "limited benefit" because "almost none" of these records are receiving payments.
This hardly feels like big potatoes, either way.
But DOGE gotta DOGE.
Reposted by Felix Herzog
And that in turns explains why the database appears to contain an inordinately large number of very old people (whose deaths haven't been recorded).
But existing on a database is different than getting a social security payment. 98% of these folks receive no payments.
But existing on a database is different than getting a social security payment. 98% of these folks receive no payments.
February 17, 2025 at 4:11 PM
And that in turns explains why the database appears to contain an inordinately large number of very old people (whose deaths haven't been recorded).
But existing on a database is different than getting a social security payment. 98% of these folks receive no payments.
But existing on a database is different than getting a social security payment. 98% of these folks receive no payments.